Reviews and Ratings Discussion

I’ve been meaning too watched Dinner with Andre for well over a decade. 😑
I can enjoy a film like that, for example I love Dust in the Wind, but I get it’ll put some off because of it’s structure and slightly meandering nature as it just moves along.

Well, to take an aside, My Dinner With Andre is ****ing awesome. So, ya know, watch it some time.

I have no idea what a 'Lovecraftian' film is, so that would tell me nothing about the movie being reviewed. Everything else in your example of a good review is still a personal type of review. And this line, "has at least a few really great moments that you will remember long after the movie" is pure ballyhoo. Now you might think that's criticism but I personally like ballyhoo Because well it's very personal!

Hey, finally, here I am, replying. Unlike the feminism thread, I’ve been engaging in this thread while battling migraines and, at times, seriously contemplating the prospect of dying from them, so it is entirely fair to say I haven’t been at my most nuanced/careful when replying here. So I accept that.

I’m not saying that it’s about ‘promoting homosexuality’. That’s truly crude and grotesque. I do think, incidentally, that Rent is just awful (sorry), mainly because it doesn’t work as a musical and is a hot mess overall. Not making that into any kind objective quality assessment, been too long since I watched it. I actually agree that I would recommend Carol - especially to someone like me who tries to watch as much as possible to expand their horizons both cinematically and socially.

You’re making an interesting point which I’ll admit I haven’t considered in terms of people genuinely counting the ‘diversity’ of a film as a plus in its own right. I’m not going to argue with that, I think we all have stuff like that. I sometimes tend to give films where villains come out on top a pass because I like the fact that it’s ever so much harder to ground (although I wouldn’t say I’d give utter garbage like No One Lives a pass because the ‘bad guy’ won, so there’s a limit to that).

You’ve certainly given me a different perspective on this, so thanks for that. I don’t necessarily get how that works, but perhaps that’s just me. Case in point: I’m considering watching Loki the show. I actually intended to create a poll (if I knew how, that is ) to help me decide whether to watch Loki or Dexter (late to the party, I know). I did ask whether Loki continues to be evil in the show, and supposing that this were the case, I would certainly count that in the show’s favour, seeing as I love antagonist narratives. But if it turned out to be an awful show in my view (as with No One Lives the film), the fact that it centres around an antagonist/villain certainly wouldn’t predispose me to praising it, you know? So it’s that bit I grapple with. If diversity matters to you personally, fair enough: but why would it make you recommend something just because it’s there? Is it that one would rather watch a rubbish show with ‘diverse’ characters than an excellent show with none? It’s that bit that I don’t get. Surely diversity won’t make it a better show?

I mean, I watch everything with Isabelle Huppert. Everything she’s ever been in, I’ve seen. That woman usually delivers. Same with Kristin Scott Thomas, but this one - less so. I thought Military Wives was so abysmal that even KST’s presence didn’t tempt me to finish it. I would say the same would make sense to me when it comes to diversity, ie if it’s bad, or not great, then it’s not, makes no difference if it’s diverse. I do appreciate I’m probably missing something.

This is not about film, but: my firm decided to make my already agonising month of June still more unbearable and threw a kind of skill-sharing corporate party. Don’t ask me, to quote The Nice Guys, I don’t know what the **** that means, either. But anyway, during said event, Cardi B (God helps us all) was playing. I googled the monstrosity for lack of anything better to do and saw a review that essentially said, ‘Cardi B doesn’t offer anything new in her latest album and we’re here for it, it’s great.’ Yet when it’s Eminem, oh, he has nothing to say, we’ve heard this before, why another album. I see an imbalance and I see a situation that is skewed ideologically. I don’t believe that these things are just due to reviewers’ personal preference.

I can, of course, be wrong. But while I think the points you make, Takoma, are very valid, I still feel, as with the above, that people are perfectly conscious that they are promoting a political viewpoint, rather than the film itself, and, yes, I believe there is a disingenuousness to that. But I appreciate it’s an unfalsifiable point on my part.

Craft, design, score? Those are actual tangible things. Now if you're wanting to say that determining what is good craft, design, score, etc., is still personal, then you are saying that literally every aspect of a film is personal to the viewer and therefore all criticism or critique is entirely personal and there is no such thing as a difference between a high-quality or poor-quality film.

Excellent post, second that.

Yes, I've been following your migraine woes. That stinks.

So in both the case of a negative and positive response to a film, you align with the critical consensus. And in both cases, it is because of what you perceive as the value of the films.

And this is actually how I think most critics work. Little elements of a film (like a "realistic" ending) give us a little nudge toward a positive reaction. But, like you say, you wouldn't recommend a film only because of that element. And I don't think that most reviewers/critics are out there recommending films only because they are LGBT themed or feature a diverse cast.

I do think that diversity can be considered a plus by an individual, but to a certain degree it can also simply be a point of interest. When I was in like 10th grade, I went to see a race-flipped stage version of Othello (featuring Patrick Stewart as Othello!). Anyone who saw that play would be an absolute liar if they didn't admit that seeing a huge stage production featuring an all-black cast except for a single white actor was different and kind of electric.

You wouldn't praise it if it were awful. But what if it were kind of average? Might the structure of it (centering on a villain) maybe give you the nudge from neutral to slightly positive? You might even say in a hypothetical review that it is fun in part because it is from the point of view of an antagonist. And you might be more likely to recommend it or review it positively than a show with the same cast/writing/etc but without that antagonist dynamic. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, because in your hypothetical review you would say what you thought were the strengths of the show, what you thought needed work, and your reader could judge how well that aligns with what they want from a show.

I read reviews all the time that give high praise to films, but what they are praising doesn't match up with my interest. I get quickly bored with vehicle chase type things. So while I have read genuine praise for some of the Fast and the Furious films, they just aren't something I want to check out.

I don't think you are missing anything. Diversity (of cast or of character types) is one element of a film. And if it is an element that is of interest to a reviewer, its presence might give the reviewer's response a little "bump"--they might genuinely enjoy the film/show a little more because of it.

I think that what you are more concerned about is a more calculated response. Ie, "Well this film isn't good, but it has gay people in it, so I shouldn't give it a bad review". There might be some of that out there, but I don't think it's a majority. Otherwise something like Rent would be swimming in positive reviews.

So you read a review of Cardi B and then a review of Eminem from the same reviewer?

Couldn't it be that Cardi B is still a relatively new talent and so repetition from her is a little different from a guy over 20 years into his career? I mean, Paul McCartney's most recent album got overall positive reviews, and he is literally an old white man.

So when I praise Mitchells vs the Machines for its deft inclusion of an LGBT teen protagonist, am I promoting a political viewpoint?

To me that is a positive element of the film because, in part, it provides representation to the students of mine who feel isolated and misunderstood by their peers. It is a positive element because it captures an experience and story not often seen in movies and especially not in "family" movies. I don't see this as a political viewpoint--I see it as fulfilling a key role of art.

Thank you. It’s better now so hopefully the end is in sight.

I’m conscious of not wanting to derail this thread with any more of this (the music was just an example which people may or may not find relevant), but as Yoda said regarding Nolan (I think it was - you guessed it - the long-suffering feminism/stereotypes thread), if someone is good at making music or films in a particular way, why should they change approach just for the sake of proving they can, almost? In both cases, the current approach clearly works for the two men, is very much commercially viable (in fact, that’s an understatement), and yet there’s an inherent assumption that if they don’t change, there’s something wrong? But I do think this is not quite what the thread is about.

Clare Denis has been making ‘the same’ broadly feminist and progressive films for circa 40 years (certainly ‘the same’ in the sense in which Nolan and Eminem’s work is said to remain ‘the same’ over the years). She has ventured into sci-fi, but conceptually it’s the same progressive approach, nothing new. She continues to get constant critical praise with virtually zero negative reviews that I could find. I don’t know how far it is helpful to go on given that you and I, at least, certainly respect each other’s views but are unlikely to come to an agreement.

Hmm, I think that is a very loaded question (not in the negative sense of the word but merely in terms of its implications) and one that is hard to answer taking everything into account. Perhaps you are not being consciously or overtly political. But I think the lines are becoming very blurred now that a lot of art and creative work is brought into politics, especially the identity politics debate.

As I was saying in a long-lost Shoutbox back-and-forth with Iroquois, it is my view that the only way to truly appreciate art (cinema, in this case) is to approach it aesthetically, that is, setting aside its political implications (that’s my pared-down definition as far as this discussion is concerned).

So I do think that praising diversity takes away from that aesthetic approach and endangers the appreciation of art for what it is: an abstract medium. Sure, it is affected by context and politics. But I think if we go along the route you are setting out above, we are at a risk of not only praising films for including diversity (something I disagree with, but fine, that’s just me) but also dismissing films which, for whatever reasons, lack it. Because if we admit that diversity is a good enough reason on its own to say something is good, then we’re opening the door for non-diverse things to be banned and no-platformed.

I think it is a great shame and, frankly, setting a dangerous precedent that Netflix (or whatever it was) removed Gone with the Wind for its less-than-nuanced portrayal of Hattie McDaniel’s character
Mammy. Many films with extremely troubling backstories, ideologies and narratives constitute great works of art worthy of preservation, even Triumph of the Will (I mean, I dread getting back into the objectivity/subjectivity of greatness debate, but hopefully we will agree, as Wooley has suggested, that things like camera angles and the use of light and sound and long and short takes all contribute to the objective craft of filmmaking, meaning that some ‘Criterion Collection-level’ films are some of the greatest ever made, and therefore worthy of attention).

Don't be putting words in my mouth by extrapolating my original intent of my post and changing it to a, 'there forth it follows scenario'...that's akin to a strawman argument.

I never said there's no difference between a high quality or poor quality film. I originally said: I dislike like long, wordy movie reviews and reviews that are mostly compose of synopsis...and I said I prefer to shoot from the hip when I write a review as I favor writing reviews based on my personal reaction.

Your implication was that Eminem was getting criticized but Cardi B wasn't just because she is Black and he is white. I think it's more complex than that. I admittedly only read one review of the new Eminem album (because he has only ever mildly interested me as an artist), but it echoed what I have heard by word of mouth about it: the stuff that he is doing that is the same feels really outdated, and leaning on "feuds" with random celebrities/musicians.

But this again fails to separate the quality of the work from any political elements of it. I have felt that every film from Denis that I have seen was worth seeing, and not because of any political/feminist themes or whatever, but because of the particular energy and scale that she gives her films.

I mean, I really don't see the difference here. Look at Nolan's filmography on Rotten Tomatoes (looking only where he is credited as a director). It is incredibly similar to Denis. In fact, her lowest-rated film that she directed has a 50% "fresh" score, while his lowest-rated directed film is a 70%. He has no critically "rotten" films, while Denis has two (Trouble Every Day and Venus Beauty Institute). I will grant you that more people are probably talking about Nolan because he is one of the biggest name directors in the world right now and his films generate more discussion and therefore more backlash. But I do not see evidence of a critical bias that favors Denis just because of her films' "progressive" themes.

You are making the assumption that there is such a thing as an apolitical film. There isn't.

When you put characters on screen, you are saying "These people are worth spending time with. Their stories are worth telling."

Excluding certain groups from being portrayed in film (or from being portrayed in any but the most stereotypical way) is also political. The fact that there was literally a film code that excluded certain portrayals says a lot.

But to do that is to assume that (1) the reviewer will not have any personal connections to the film and (2) that there is some sort of universal aesthetic. I believe both of those assumptions are incorrect.

I do not see the logical path here at all. Carving out space for one group might mean a little less space for another group, but it does not follow that one group would then become entirely excluded. A library designating a shelf for LGBT romance does not naturally imply that eventually any romances featuring straight people will be banned.

I believe that the film was not removed, but was given an introductory title card explaining the context of the film.

Would you, ever, in all honesty, recommend Birth of a Nation to a friend (especially a friend who was Black) without giving some context as to the content of the film? Would you be doing your job as a reviewer if you failed to mention the use of blackface or the portrayal of Black people as craven, uneducated, disgusting rapists? (And, to echo something I said earlier, would you argue that this portrayal is somehow "apolitical"? Isn't this a great example of a film from 100 years ago that is very much engaged in identity politics and advancing a certain agenda?)

This goes, again, into the split purpose of criticism and why it is important to be clear about the intent behind a review.

If some friends wanted a fun movie to watch on a Saturday night, WOULD NOT RECOMMEND! If someone was interested in film history and especially films that demonstrated steps forward in technique? Recommended with context.

Re: apolitical. Unless I'm missing context from earlier in the discussion, I believe they just talked about films that were "overtly political," and didn't suggest that any film should (or could) completely avoid any political commentary.

I also think, if everything is political, that should be a tip off that people who say "political" must mean something more than that. They generally mean something especially political, or about a currently contentious political topic, or that seems designed to move the debate in some way (particularly at the expense of its quality as a story).

We run into similar issues when people say things like "everything is art." Maybe technically true, but not really useful to note unless the goal is to critique someone's choice of words, as opposed to understanding and responding to what they're trying to communicate.

It feels as though the definition of "political" is being stretched to include any film that is intentionally diverse.

My point is that if inclusion is to be seen as a political act, then we must also consider exclusion a political act.

To me, the definition of an "overtly political" film is a film that is about the politics of it main characters. So something like Milk or Hurricane.

But in this discussion, the term political also seems to be applied to films that push diversity even if the film isn't about that diversity. And if that's our working definition of political, then I think we have to look at the other side of the coin, which is films where certain groups have been excluded.

And if the reasons for including a diverse cast are about popularity/audience appeal (similar to why really, really attractive people tend to star in movies), then I see it as being more of an economic argument than a political one, though the two are obviously intertwined.

Ultimately, this is a discussion about critics and their role. The question was raised about whether or not critics are handing out bonus points for films that are more progressive and basically using their role as critics to advance a liberal/progressive agenda. I think that it's dubious to put a "political" label on any film that makes an effort toward diversity or includes LGBT characters, but act as if films that don't make that effort are somehow lacking in their own politics.

Well, "look at" is pretty broad so I'm sure there's some definition of that which I'd agree with, but I don't think they're analogous. In this case the exclusion, I think, is done out of passivity or ignorance (status quote bias/cultural inertia/whatever), whereas the inclusion is obviously specific and deliberate. That kind of exclusion can still be criticized on any number of grounds (most of them having little to do with art or criticism), but if we're just talking about the push-pull between agenda and story, the deliberate inclusion is obviously not the same as the incidental exclusion.

I don't really have much objection to this, and I specifically want to praise it for being willing to ascribe mostly non-sinister motives to these kinds of things. Just generally I think explanations for things that hold together without believing people are ghouls are more likely to be true.

The only caveat I'd throw in is that the economic self-interest argument is sometimes "I think this will sell tickets" and sometimes more "I'm worried if I don't do this I'll get in trouble and not sell tickets." And that, like the inclusion/exclusion distinction, is also not really symmetrical to my mind. Diversity motivated by positive reinforcement seems like a much healthier (and sustainable) thing than the inverse: demanding inclusion under threat of thinkpiece, or whatever.

Yeah, let's pull it back to the core topic. Is there much doubt the politics of a film will influence critics? If a profession is thoroughly dominated by an ideology, it's really not plausible to suggest it isn't having a significant effect, particularly a profession about art, emotions, and ideas.

Take journalism, which is obviously similar: it may make people want to roll their eyes when someone on the right talks about media bias (and heck, even largely agreeing with them, sometimes I roll my eyes at how reflexive it's become)...but we can see plainly from the aggregate political donations of journalists that they're not just to the left of the median, but overwhelmingly so, and it just isn't realistic to think that isn't manifested in coverage. Maybe it's not fair to assume this is the case in any specific instance sans evidence, but in aggregate it's obviously going to have a huge effect. It has to.

I haven't read the whole conversation, but I'll say that if this general leaning is being used to simply assume something about a specific critic's opinion, that's probably too glib. But if it's just a general observation about the industry's aggregate beliefs and the inevitability of that manifesting itself in its criticism, I think that's just human nature.

Not at all! That didn’t even cross my mind. My implication is that people who produce non-PC art are judged differently from those who make PC art.

It’s not about race but political correctness. He has been homophobic and misogynistic (probably still is but tries to hide it is my view) throughout most of his career, so he gets criticised, and she doesn’t, because she makes music about girl power and female emancipation and women being sexually wild, all of them fashionable topics. She makes music that says what people like to hear nowadays, politically and socially, so she gets praised, though talent-wise, as a singer and even as a rapper, she’s mediocre. The latter point can be discarded as far as this discussion is concerned, because it would be too hard to bring in which vocal coaches and singing professionals have said that.

I don’t know. Maybe you’re right. Your reasoning above makes perfect sense, so perhaps Denis is a bad example.

That is true, but there is an entire philosophy of aestheticism out there, which was partly inspired by Nietzsche’s work (part of why it gets a bad press, though as ever, Nietzsche himself is very misunderstood and his work misconstrued and misappropriated by all kinds of movements). The aesthetic approach to art requires you to judge just that, art, physical beauty, no context. That in itself dismisses the idea that art is ‘inherently political’. The aesthetic approach, in short, champions ‘art for art’s sake’, emphasising the visual and sensual qualities of art and design over practical, moral or narrative considerations.

I was having this exact conversation with Iroquois in the Shoutbox and I said then, which I still believe to be the case, that even if something was made with political motives/considerations in mind, that’s no reason to view it through that lens. A film that puts forward bigoted views can still be a brilliant, even genius film. We are losing the ability to appreciate that as a society. Any art should be viewed just as a work of art, apolitically, because not to do that is taking too much away from people. It is simply making the work of art less enjoyable for the beholder to refuse to see it aesthetically. If you want to do that, sure, but why?

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...slippery-slope

This explains my view in much more detail.

Your claim that there is no such thing as an apolitical film (which I actually agree with) is not supported by evidence and you give no argument. Yet when I do the same (I suspect that’ll be said about the end of my last paragraph), I am told that I am making blanket statements that are not supported by evidence and that I can’t justify them. Just read back in this very thread. It’s about which argument you’re making - that influences perception significantly.

Now, I would more or less agree that perhaps there are next to no apolitical films (insofar as it means a film made with no political considerations in mind). But my argument is that, regardless of what context or society films were made in or who made them or what their beliefs are, they should be approached, viewed, and, therefore, reviewed aesthetically, bearing in mind only how well they work as art.

It’s not about who made the music/the film, Eminem or Cardi B. It’s about the fact that it doesn’t make it any better if it’s about Black female empowerment than male white angst. The quality of music is no better for the subject matter.

Fair enough. I appreciate that.

Not necessarily banned, but discouraged from being made in future. At the end of the day, I might even agree that if you’re a filmmaker who intends to be working in the next 20+ years, you probably shouldn’t make all-white straight films anyway. But there is a sense that it’s high time to represent other groups, so the straight white group doesn’t get to feature in narratives. That may even seem fair enough to some, but these present day white male creatives had nothing to do with whatever injustices occurred in the past.

I wouldn’t recommend Birth of a Nation partly because, well, they would probably be aware of it and take no pleasure in watching it, and why would I recommend something that would distress someone? I wouldn’t recommend The Pianist to my ‘softie’ mother because she’ll be sure to be distressed.

As for whether I would be doing my job, I agree that I would most likely have to mention it, but if we take something less extreme than blackface - I say again and again and again that I think blackface is too loaded an example - such as a thoroughly domesticated female character who agrees to sexually service her husband in a film when she’s not feeling well, then well, if I’m writing a review of that film, I wouldn’t necessarily mention that this approach to marriage/partnership is outdated. I don’t think that’s got much to do with whether the film is good, I really don’t.

If I were writing a review of My Fair Lady, I wouldn’t bring up the fact that some may consider it sexist. I don’t think I wouldn’t be doing my job as a reviewer if I didn’t say, ‘Oh, of course Eliza should be free to be herself and keep her accent’, because the whole narrative is a social experiment about whether she could be made to change her accent (among other things) if the coach put his mind to it.

As someone who has worked with an accent coach to be able to sound British and American and Australian on a whim (the ridiculousness of my job knows no bounds, if you remember, that was around the same time as I was being perpetually filmed), I don’t think My Fair Lady is sexist or even classist at all, it’s about the power of vocal coaching. I would argue that to me, mentioning the perceived sexism there would seem unnatural and irrelevant. But I don’t know if I’d be expected to as a reviewer. It’s an idea that’s quite alien to me, but maybe you’re right.

I fully agree with you there. I guess everything from now on will have to be done with caveats, which, in the end, I guess, is the best way to proceed. But then again, even with context, agreeing that it is fine to take context into account, especially in educational settings, leads to situations where The Mill by H. E. Bates is swiftly removed from the GCSE curriculum because ONE student was upset by the fact it includes a rape scene.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...on-rape-story/

What concerns me is that there is a degree to which things that are "incidental" (and I actually think there is more to the exclusion of POC or LGBT people than just "whoops, forgot to cast any non-white people!") are not remarked upon.

For example, there are a ton of films that take place in major cities or college campuses, and yet there is this bizarre dearth of Asian people.

If we only put our focus on films that are "political" (by whatever metric we are using for that term, but it's increasingly conflated with diversity/representation), then I think it can blind us to the implicit politics of other films. I think that a film like Taken is a really great example of this.

And there it is important to remember that we are still in a "leveling" phase. Many industries are still finding an equilibrium after decades of policies (explicit and implicit) that excluded a lot of people from expressing themselves or excelling. I honestly believe that the films that are genuine in their inclusion will rise to the top, because throwing token characters on the screen will no longer be enough. And I also believe that the pressure on creators will diminish, because there won't be a sense that significant groups of people are being excluded from the creative process.

I'm sure that there is some handful of critics/reviewers (though I use that term loosely) who are happy to jump on the superficially-PC bandwagon. But then that goes back to our earlier discussion about the importance of seeking out critic/reviewer voices that align with your own cinematic interests and inform or challenge your thinking in a productive way.

Which again goes back to finding people you trust. If I used just RT scores or IMDb scores to guide my viewing, there's a lot of great, interesting stuff I'd probably never see.

But then we also go back to economics. Are the opinions of critics (and it's really important to separate critics from the massive anonymous internet population) actually influencing what films get made/who gets funding/what scripts get written? My gut says no, or at least that it is a very limited influence.

I totally agree.

What we are parsing out is whether or not the beliefs and reactions of a critic are "fair" to apply to a review. In other words, if I value telling diverse stories, and that leads me to praise a film in part because it tells a story that I haven't seen before, is that "fair"? I believe that it is, and especially if the critic/reviewer specifically names the reasons for their positive reaction. I think that asking critics/reviewers to "unplug" their humanity from their writing and just give a list of technical criticisms would make it a lot less interesting and a lot less useful.

I like that you brought this up, because I think it serves as a nice pivot into a more general conversation about influence. Film critics are, in a traditional sense, journalists, and journalists are typically from higher income, urban areas. I'd say film critics even more so, since if someone is worrying about poverty or is out in the middle of nowhere, it's much harder to spend time cultivating a sufficient knowledge of film. This also applies to people making films, which is why most film makers and critics represent the values of urban America more than they represent the values of rural America. I use the term "values" because location influences much more than just politics.

How much do you guys think this matters? How much do outside values like politics determine someone's taste in film? Does a film's perceived quality vary from place to place, or do certain qualities transcend background? The specific questions aren't important, I'm just trying to jog your brains a bit

I sincerely apologize for this misunderstanding, because that is the contrast I thought you were using (the demographics of the artists, not the nature of their music). (And thank you for being gracious about it).

From my limited encounters with his music, there's just something tired about his stuff at this point. It was fresh in the late 90s, but it's no longer thrilling. Say what you want about Cardi B, but I turn her music up on the radio when it comes on. If her music sounds exactly the same in 2040, who knows. I think that her content may be more contemporary, but so is her style. And I think it's the style more than the content that is at the root of the difference in treatment of them.

And obviously this kind of criticism can be done.

But as a viewer, I dislike the idea of pulling out the human element from how we respond to a film. I think that the response to a movie (or any art) is some mix of appreciation for technical elements and an emotional response to the story/characters.

But what do you mean by "brilliant"? Technically accomplished? Then, sure, I agree. However, the act of disregarding racism/sexism/homophobia in the interest of enjoying (on a technical level) a piece of art is something I find troubling. In my mind, there is a difference between films that are technical masterpieces and films that are "good movies". And, frankly, some of us can't simply look past blackface or other things of that nature because it would require closing off the human parts of ourselves. And if I'm not watching a movie as a human, what's the point?

My argument is that there is something inherently political in deciding which stories to tell (or not to tell), and thus any film is political to some degree. That, and art is always a response to the world around it in some form or another. They might be"minor" politics, but they are politics nonetheless.

You say "how well they work as art" as if that is something measurable. But there is always a human element. Again, you can limit your criticism only to technical aspects, but that leaves out the intangible magic that some films have that just can't be accounted for in technical terms. For me, Brain Damage is a great movie. It makes me cry. It makes me laugh. I will think about it for days after watching it. But I cannot imagine that I would ever be able to argue its greatness on a purely technical level.

And "how well something works as art" is also squishy. To begin with, different people/cultures/eras have different definitions for what makes "good art". There is also a judgement to be made about how well something serves a film's vision, and to that end, the critic must make a decision about what the film is trying to accomplish.

Now, obviously taken to an extreme, you could say "Then no one can judge anything!!!". I do think that most people who are into movies can come to a general consensus about what effective acting/directing/writing/etc looks like. And while I would find a review that only made judgement on these elements to be moderately useful, I don't think it's the kind of review I would be drawn to.

But might it be more valuable to an audience of rap fans?


I think that there are plenty of white male creatives getting work and making the art they want. Again, this is going to extremes. Having more diverse leads =/= no white male leads. And I would argue again that I don't believe that critics/reviewers (the group we are discussing) wield that kind of power over where funding is directed. I bet we could easily find many examples of critically acclaimed films with white male leads.

And I think that it is fine if your approach to film review would be to focus only on the success of its technical merits.

But when I read a review, part of what I want to know is whether or not I will enjoy the film being reviewed. One critic can be more focused on the "success" of the film in meeting its own goals, while another critic can be focused on the audience experience of the film and accurately relating that to a reader. I think that both approaches are valid and it's generally very easy to tell one style from the other.

Again, what I wrote just above. I think that it depends on your aim with your review and your perceived reader audience.

I can't read the whole article, but the headline says pupils, which implies more than one?

But also, you should not have a test question centering on a text that includes rape. That's just basic common sense. A lot of high school and college-aged students (male and female) experience sexual violence. It would be appropriate if you gave students the choice of two questions and gave a disclaimed that one of them contained such content. Even then--poor teaching practice.

Oh, I’m sure I must have annoyed you out of your wits by now with all this, so absolutely no need. Perhaps I should have made that clearer, but my posts are already so much longer than yours that they’d feel like a mini-dissertation if I added any more qualifiers. But I think that’s also a good moment to point out that people seem to increasingly reach for ‘identity politics’ in such debates, i.e, there is an assumption that I would be referring to whether someone is Black or white, rather than the content of their music.

Re: Cardi B vs Eminem, I firmly believe the latter (the content) is the cause, and I also believe that he would not have reached those heights if he tried to make the kind of music he used to make now from scratch, as a non-established artist, but that’s definitely an opinion-driven conversation and you may well be right, so let’s leave that.

I do hear what you’re saying. And perhaps it might be beneficial to add the ‘humanity’ into the mix when it comes to one’s appreciation of anything. I certainly think humans as a species are subjective by nature, so finding some way to acknowledge that without compromising scholarship would be good. But my concern is that there is indeed a slippery slope of sorts (that’s what The Telegraph article calls it). If we do admit the ‘humanity’ into reviewing films or, really, into giving any critical feedback, it will simply become entirely subjective (as has been suggested earlier in this thread) and consequently it will end up being, well, less than useful, almost?

I have noted you’ve used that word, ‘useful’, and I like that because I think it’s very relevant. I think ultimately it’s important to establish what’s useful in a review for the majority of people. Now, that’s hard to do, but we do have an established framework for, I don’t know, grading student papers, because it has to be done on a global scale without disadvantaging anyone.

It might, I suppose (and then it might not), but why? Why would it be more valuable? Because young girls haven’t heard a rapper argue ‘their side’? Alright, that’s the appeal of Cardi B for them, but why would it be more valuable - especially to rap fans as a whole? This is where I think the educational and aspirational aspect comes into play again, and I’m very uncomfortable with that. To me, the above sentence implies that it is a better use of my time to listen to Cardi B than Eminem.

Back to film (sorry, I just think the above was a helpful analogy and your response only convinced me that it’s true). Another thing that, to me, kind of stems from here and is relevant is the question of what happens to films that explore really uncomfortable aspects of the human condition. A film I’m thinking of, which I’ve already referenced in the same context a bunch of times, is Let’s Talk About Kevin.

I know for a fact, from personal experience, that many mothers feel… unsettled by this film (I would cautiously dub the feeling LTAK instills in them as ‘fear’). They dislike what it says about motherhood, that, ooops, you may not love your child, your child may be a monster, etc. Very uncomfortable, inconvenient ideas that I know for a fact cause distress to many mothers, who lament that LTAK was made as it might discourage their kids from having kids (by disillusioning them, I guess).

So it is not an extreme extrapolation but a natural one, to me, that the ‘motherhood lobby’ (entirely fictional, as far as I’m aware, outside the abortion debate) could try to bring their humanity in and argue that they are offended by the suggestion that motherhood is not all rosy. And this is where the ‘victim mentality’ comes in, because instead of them being told to suck it up, they’re likely to gain a platform to, if not ‘ban’ LTAK, argue why they think no more such films should be made… (we’re kind of back to the point I was making about Joker).

As for the uncomfortable: I have seen most of the films ever made about extremism, especially the white suprematist kind. I was reading theology at the time and I wanted to understand where people are coming from when holding these views and, especially, how Christianity and Immanuel Kant’s writings were used to ground them. Most of the films on the subject suck, but American History X to me seems fairly balanced, given the dire state of the said sub-genre overall. I think it’s important to continue making films about white supremacy that explore that side (like The Hater), because in the very least it will keep the subject in the public eye and people will ‘know their enemy’. These films, understandably, may be offensive to some reviewers’ humanity. But if we didn’t take a look (your expression, and I like it, it’s apt) at what drives these people, how they get to that place, we would never understand or be able to address the problem. Or, on a less socially conscious level, people like me, who find these themes fascinating, wouldn’t get to see those films and think about these things in such depth.

Re: this: One student brought it up, others then agreed. See, I feel it is the purpose of education to show children the real world, even if it may at times be a sick and ****ed-up place. Not having to read/engage with that work in an exam setting won’t protect children from sexual violence or help them in any way if they’ve already encountered it. It will insulate them and give them a false and incredibly damaging feeling that you can refuse to engage with unpleasant reality in the adult world. It will prevent them from building a thick skin and a healthy critical tolerance of ideas that are distasteful and it will damage them in the long-term.

Now, this was actually a rather long time ago, but another case in point: someone at my school wanted to do a Sixth Form/high school project on Nazi Germany, exploring how the ‘Third Reich’ became economically successful; the blasted and rather obnoxious argument, which also gets applied to the Soviet Union, that ‘the trains did run on time, though!’. All said student, aged about 17, if I remember correctly, wanted to do in her project is explore how Germany in the 1930s was able to get up from its knees and rejuvenate its economy, which, what with the post-WWI reparations, was no mean feat simply in admin terms.

The student got shut down by the school’s board/Head of Sixth Form, or whichever entity was in charge of overseeing such projects, within weeks of submitting the project proposal. The reason I mention this is the people in charge were particularly concerned about the impact of said student’s project defence presentation on whoever might happen to be present and forced to listen to distasteful ideas.

I think (and this is not a new argument, it has been made by many on the right in the context of a range of works and statements made by private individuals causing ‘offence’ to particular people and the possibility of persecution on those grounds), that if the ‘humanity’ of reviewers is taken into account in this way, it risks taking precedence over someone’s desire and right to explore an uncomfortable subject. Yet again I cite Joker.

Yes, it did win awards and become a box office success, etc. (although I would still argue this is in danger of not being the case for much longer if this ‘woke’ state of affairs prevails), but the female reviewers I’ve already cited suggested it was ‘dangerous’ and that it ‘shouldn’t have been made’.

Setting my personal feeling about this aside for a moment, if society stops teaching children about the Holocaust because it’s ‘upsetting’ (yeah, no ****!) and ‘affects someone’s humanity’, we are at a danger of creating and living in an insulated, artificial world where we see no evil and no controversial opinions, preferences and beliefs because they are uncomfortable and inappropriate.

I honestly believe that would be a much bigger problem that could have much direr consequences. This is a REAL example I’m citing about the Holocaust that I saw with my own eyes before the pandemic.

You are an educator; I have always loved working with children and have the utmost respect for those who educate for a living, because, boy, that takes guts. Having spoken to you a lot and enjoyed it very much, I don’t believe you would shy away from uncomfortable questions from your students: uncomfortable generally or uncomfortable to you personally.

Do you not think that it is our job to give children objective, non-biased opinions about history, at least, or the ‘basic’ facts about the world? Sure, we can’t entirely succeed in being unbiased, but shouldn’t we still try? Books like Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day touch, in a nuanced and restrained manner, on the lives of British aristocracy that was rumoured to be (and was) sympathetic to Nazism (the Mosleys-Mitfords, mainly).

I happen to believe it’s extremely important to be upfront about these things and have the guts to admit to children that yes, British aristocracy at the time thought Nazis were the lesser evil compared to the Soviets, that, yes, British aristocracy more or less approved of eugenics and ‘not mixing’ and so forth.

Yet if I made a film like that, entitled, I don’t know, I, Unity Mitford (I’m looking at you, Craig Gillespie) and tried to portray Unity sitting on her knees before Hitler and telling him she was in love with him, I would be sure to insult many people’s humanity. Heck, my own family, being ethnic Russians, would throw a fit and disown me. But avoiding showing such things won’t make them go away. I just feel that any attempt to make the world more emotionally comfortable to anyone to respect someone’s humanity may sugarcoat this world and silence crucial, life-and-death level debates/conversations.

Have you listened to much of his recent work? To my ear it sounds almost worse than his earlier work. And I don't even think the most recent song I listened to from him had anything "un-PC" that jumped out at me. The most entertaining thing Eminem has done in the last 5 years was his funny (brief) cameo on SNL at the end of their "Stan" parody.

I think that we can agree (or, I hope) that a review on either extreme wouldn't be all that fun to read or all that useful.

Review A: "The direction was skilled. The acting was appropriate to the tone of the film. The photography made good use of the colors in the natural landscape. This film was more than technically adequate."

Review B: "I really connected with this film because I also once went on a trip to India. Also, I just love Salma Hayek! She's so talented! This movie really made me feel a lot of emotions, and especially in the early scenes when she is saying goodbye to her family."

Do we, though?

Maybe it's more a question of seeing reviews/criticism themselves as a kind of art in their own right. While it might be true that many reviewers give grades or numeric scores to a film as a kind of summary of their overall feelings about it, I have never felt that I gleaned much from someone saying "Oh, yeah, Kiss the Girls. I give it a 3.5/5."

I say, entirely without snark, how important is it that every reviewer in the world be on the same page with what it means to write a review? Isn't that the kind of thing that would quash the quirks and individualism that makes certain reviewers (like Ebert) fun to read?

I think that it is nearly impossible to create an "ultimate rubric" for film criticism. Among other things, there would be basic disagreement about what elements should even count. And even then, you'd have standards like "The acting style is aligned to the tone of the film." But different reviewers might have a different read on both the film's tone OR how well the acting suits it. I think that in the interest of creating something more objective, you'd just end up with a confused muddle.

If the subject matter of one rapper feels more relevant and more fresh, then that can be counted as a point in its favor. Especially when most reviews of music are more about what is fun to listen to right now, and not actually deep dives into the technical qualities of the music.

Also, it's not just young girls who like Cardi B. My class of students two years ago LOVED her--including my super-rural little farm boys. (After lunch in the classroom where we listened to Maroon 5's "Girls", one little boy came up to me and was like I really like Cardi B). They aren't reading music reviews. And via their parents they all know "older" musicians, and I know they know who Eminem is.

Are we talking about critical response here, or the general response of the viewing public?

Critically, I think that films that explore uncomfortable aspects of life tend to be praised. Amour has a 93% fresh rating. We Need to Talk About Kevin is like 75% fresh.

There is a difference between a movie that shows an uncomfortable dynamic and a film that people feel may do actual harm to them. It also comes down to individual vs common good. If there is a movie that I watch that makes me fearful about motherhood, that impacts me. If I watch a film in which I am exposed (without context) to portrayals of people of a certain race/sexuality/gender, that has the potential to negatively impact people I come in contact with. I see these as being different situations.

There is a difference between what a film is about and how a film approaches the topic. I don't believe there are any taboo topics in art. But I do believe that how creators tell their stories can have a negative impact on actual living people. I think that there are many well-reviewed films about divisive or uncomfortable topics that are highly rated.

A film like Come and See is hard to watch and uncomfortable at times. But my opinion of the film would likely be radically different if its point of view was that the torture and killings of the civilians was a necessary part of the war in which the German Army was rightfully engaged.

It is the purpose of education to show children the real world in a way that is developmentally appropriate to their age and situation. Would it be appropriate to show a Kindergarten-aged child footage of concentration camps? I think the answer is no.

There is a big difference between tactfully helping children encounter (vicariously) violence/cruelty/unfairness and exposing them, without scaffolds, to potentially traumatic content.

I had a student a few years ago who was 10 years old. His father died of suicide. During one of my read aloud books, there is a part where a character discusses suicide. Is it okay to read this part? Yes, with me providing emotional support before and after and helping the students to process it. Would it be appropriate for me to put a passage in front of that student on a test in which suicide occurs? Absolutely not.

Many students do not have good coping mechanisms, especially those who have encountered trauma or abuse. And throwing the horrors of the world at them without adequate support isn't going to build thick skin. For many students, it just pushes them further down a spiral of anxiety and depression.

A classroom lesson/book study/project is an appropriate context for including content that may directly relate to a trauma a student has suffered. An exam is not.

I would argue that those reviewers are allowed to have that opinion, and that those opinions probably had little impact on the likelihood of such a film being made in the future. I highly doubt that those saying it shouldn't have been made are considered renowned critics, and I don't even think that renowned critics have a ton of sway (on the movie industry or on the movie-going public).

Going back to movies, this is not a question of WHAT, it is a question of HOW.

Just speaking for my state, our social studies curriculum has been completely revamped and it now includes more of what we call hard history. There is far more nuance in the curriculum and more of an emphasis on critical thinking and perspective taking.

Going back to film criticism: art has an impact on the people who view it. I do not believe that including the "human element" in film criticism/reviews means that you don't tackle challenging topics. Quite the opposite.

I think that including the human element means that you are more critical about what a film is saying about its topic and how it chooses to express that point of view.

Is it common to have exam questions about material that wasn't previously "lessons/book study/projects"?

I'd be pretty triggered as well if an exam started asking me about random books that had never been brought up before in class.